Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Satya Pal Sobti – Appellant
Versus
Achraj Nath & Ors. – Respondents
RFA 241 of 2013
Decided On : 15-05-2018
Will Validity - Property Partition - Delhi Development Act - [Smt. Kailash Wati Sobti] - [Partition, Will Validity] - [Delhi Development Act, 1981, Section 53(B); Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 59; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68] - The court discussed the validity of the Will dated 16th June, 1981 executed by Smt. Kailash Wati Sobti in favor of the contesting Defendants and the partition of the suit property. The court analyzed the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the evidence presented by both parties. It highlighted the legal provisions of the Indian Succession Act, Indian Evidence Act, and the Delhi Development Act, and their interpretations in determining the testamentary capacity of the testator and the validity of the Will. The court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to prove the Will was invalid or executed under suspicious circumstances, and upheld the legitimacy and validity of the Will, dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Kailash Wati Sobti's son filed a suit against the contesting Defendants for partition of the suit property and declaration, disputing the validity of the Will dated 16th June, 1981 executed by his mother in favor of the contesting Defendants. The Plaintiff claimed that his mother died intestate and sought partition of the property among the legal heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove the Will was invalid or executed under suspicious circumstances. It held that the Plaintiff's inaction for 17 years after acquiring knowledge of the Will barred him from seeking relief. The court concluded that the contesting Defendants established the legitimacy and validity of the Will, and upheld the bequest made in the Will as natural. The court dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the valuation of the suit, service of notice under the Delhi Development Act, limitation of the suit, maintainability of the suit, validity of the Will, and entitlement for partition relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Plaintiff's inaction for 17 years after acquiring knowledge of the Will, the evidence presented by both parties, and the interpretation of legal provisions related to testamentary capacity and Will validity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legitimacy and validity of the Will and the bequest made in the Will, and concluded that the Plaintiff's inaction barred him from seeking relief.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. Smt. Kailash Wati Sobti was a perpetual lessee of the suit property bearing no. H-376. Vikas Puri, New Delhi, measuring 207 sq. mts. (earlier known as Bodella Residential Scheme located in Village Bodella Hostel Possingipur and Keshopur Revenue Estate). The lease was executed on 8th February, 1980 by the Delhi Administration. This lease was duly registered. Smt. Kailash Wati was the wife of Sh. Kundan Lal who had passed away on 19th March, 1973. She was blessed with 6 sons and two daughters: 1. Sh. Achraj Nath Sobti – Defendant no.1 through LRs.
2. Sh. Trilok Nath Sobti – Passed away. LRs are Defendants 5-8
3. Sh. Satya Pal Sobti – Plaintiff
4. Sh. Krishan Kumar Sobti – Defendant No.2
5. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sobti – Defendant No.3
6. Sh. Yog Raj Sobti – Defendant No.4
7. Smt. Satya Khuller – Defendant No.9
8. Smt. Usha Bhasin – Defendant No.10 2. The present suit has been filed by Sh. Satya Pal Sobti against all the Defendants claiming partition of the suit property and declaration. Initially, the suit was one for partition and injunction, however, later on the relief of declaration has been added. Defendants No. 2, 3, and 4, are in possession of the suit property, and they are the contesting Defendants. Sh. Trilok Nath Sobti passed away on 29th May, 1981, and his family has been impleaded as Defendants No. 5, 6, 7 and 8. Defendants No. 9 and 10 are the two daughters of Smt. Kailash Wati, one of whom is deceased. Defendant No.11 is the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter DDA).
3. Except Defendant No.2, 3, and 4, none of the others contest the suit. In fact the Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendants No.1, 5 to 10 supports the case of the contesting Defendants that Smt. Kailash Wati had left a registered Will date 16th June, 1981 by which she had bequeathed the property in favour of Defendants No. 2 to 4. Thus, the present dispute in respect of the suit property is only between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4 all of whom are brothers.
4. Suit of the Plaintiff is premised on the fact that the Plaintiff is one of the sons of Smt. Kailash Wati and he resides in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, where the family home is located. It is the Plaintiff’s case that Smt. Kailash Wati sold the property which was in Ganga Nagar in her name and thereafter purchased the suit property. The Plaintiff avers that Smt. Kailash Wati died intestate on 19th May, 1987 and that all the Defendants are class-1 legal heirs. The case in the plaint is that Smt. Kailash Wati was unwell for five to six years prior to her death and that no Will was executed by her in a sound state of mind. The Plaintiff claims that after the death of his mother, he repeatedly sought partition of the property amongst the legal heirs equally but the Defendants refused partition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff prayed for the following relief’s: -
“a. pass a preliminary decree/decree of partition in respect of property No. H-376 Vikaspuri, New Delhi, to the extent of 1/8th share each of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. (the Defendant no.5, 6, 7 and 8 are entitled to 1/8th share jointly being the legal heirs of late Sh. Trilok Nath Sobti) and order for partition of property by metes and bounds in favour of the parties to the suit.
b. appoint a local commissioner to suggest mode of partition of the property in case the property is not capable of partition by way of metes and bounds.
c. in the alternative, if the property can not be partitioned by metes and bounds, in that eventuality the property may be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds thereof, may kindly be ordered to be distributed amongst the legal heirs in terms of prayer (a).
d. pass a decree of injunction against the Defendants no.2, 3 and 4, from creating any third party interest in respect of the properties i.e. H.-376, Vikas Puri, New Delhi of the deceased.”
5. The Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter ‘contesting Defendants’) took the plea that Smt. Kailash Wati had executed a r
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
